From ‘peer’ review

to page views:

Social networking

for academics

Hello!My name is Lydia

You can find me at:

@liddylib

Agenda

◎What is Academic Social Networking?

◎ Peer Review

◎ Implications for libraries

◎ Questions

Image

Social

Media

Loss of personal privacy

Hard to maintain work | life balance

No personal | professional boundaries

(Gruzd, 2012)

1.Academic Social

Networking

“

Social media sites designed

specifically for scholars (Gruzd, 2012)

51+ million usersAcademia.edu

6+ million usersMendeley

11+ million usersResearchGate

Academia.edu

ResearchGate

Mendeley

Academic Social Networking Sites 101

◎ Create a research profile

◎ Build your network

◎ Create and/or join groups

◎ Participate on discussion boards

(Oh & Jeng, 2011; Krause 2012)

Image

Image

Academic social

networking sites

are not

institutional

repositories

(University of California, 2014)

2.Peer Review

Closed Peer ReviewAuthor and/or reviewer identies not

revealed (single-blind or double-blind)

◎ Pros:

- Minimizes bias

◎ Cons:

- Lack of transparency

- Reviewers may give

unwarranted – feedback

- Reviewers may still be

able to identify the author

Types of Peer Review

(De Silva & Vance, 2017, pp. 81-82; Ali & Watson, 2016)

Image

Types of Peer Review cont’d

(De Silva & Vance, 2017, pp. 81-82; Ali & Watson, 2016)

Open Peer ReviewAuthor and reviewer identities revealed

◎ Pros:

- Greater transparency

- Reviewers give + tactful &

constuctive feedback

- Better manuscript quality

- + Research dissemination

◎ Cons:

- Longer review time

- No evidence of quality improvement

- Reviewer participation

Image

Types of Peer Review cont’d

Post-Publication Peer ReviewPeople provide feedback on already published

articles

◎ Pros:

- Wider group of people able to review

- Transparent

- Better manuscript quality

◎ Cons:

- Reviewers may give unwarranted –

feedback

- Irrelevant and unhelpful comments

(Ali & Watson, 2016)

Image

Academia.edu > Sessions

Image

6,000+ /dayWhoa!

(Cutler, 2015)

ResearchGate > Open Review

Image

So ...

Why are scholars

using these peer

review features on

academic social

networking sites?

Image

““If you speak to academics, they will complain about the

publishing system...It can take 12 months to get the

peer review done...

An academic should be able to get work published in 24

hours that is already peer reviewed by two people.”

~ Richard Price, CEO, Academia.edu

(Cutler, 2015)

Image

Image

Image

3.Implications for

Libraries

What can we do?

◎ Be the go-to on all copyright related issues

Image

◎ Bring publishing (& peer review) in-house

What can we do?

Image

◎Increase use of institutional repositories

What can we do?

◎ OPR plug-in for DSpace

repositories

◎ Includes published reviews,

disclosed identities, reviewer

reputation system

◎ Complete code on GitHub

(open license)

◎ More info here and here

Introducing...

Open Peer Review for repositories!

(Perakakis et al., 2017)

Image

Thanks!

Any questions?

You can find me at:

@liddylib

liddylib.wordpress.com

lthorne4@uwo.ca

References:Ali, P. A., & Watson, R. (2016). Peer review and the publication process. Nursing Open, 3(4), 193-202.

Cutler, K. Academia.edu pushes a new kind of peer review for research with ‘Sessions.’ TechCrunch.

September 28, 2015. Retrieved May 27, 2017 from https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/28/academia/

De Silva, P. U., & Vance, C. (2017).Different models of peer review. In Scientific Scholarly Communication:

The Changing Landscape (pp.81-87). Springer.

Drafts and Feedback. Academia.edu. Retrieved May 27, 2017 from

http://support.academia.edu/customer/portal/articles/2080805-drafts-and-feedback

Greenhow, C. (2009). Social scholarship: Applying social networking technologies to research

practices. Knowledge Quest, 37(4), 42.

Gruzd, A. (2012). Non-academic and academic social networking sites for online scholarly communities.

Social media for academics: A practical guide, 21-37.

Howard, Jennifer. 2013. Posting your latest article? You might have to take it down. Chronicle of Higher

Education 60(16): A12.

Jeng, W., He, D., & Jiang, J. (2015). User participation in an academic social networking service: A survey of

open group users on Mendeley. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(5),

890-904.

Krause, J. (2012). Tracking reference with social media tools: Organizing what you’ve read or want to read. In

D. R. Neal (Ed.), Social media for academics: A practical guide (pp. 85-104). Oxford: Chandos Pub.

Lunden, I. (2013, April 08). Confirmed: Elsevier Has Bought Mendeley For $69M-$100M To Expand Its Open,

Social Education Data Efforts. Retrieved July 17, 2017, from https://techcrunch.com/2013/04/08/confirmed-

elsevier-has-bought-mendeley-for-69m-100m-to-expand-open-social-education-data-efforts/

References cont’d:Masnick, M. (2016, May 17). Disappointing: Elsevier Buys Open Access Academic Pre-Publisher SSRN.

Retrieved from https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160517/13513134465/disappointing-elsevier-buys-open-

access-academic-pre-publisher-ssrn.shtml

Matthews, David. Do academic social networks share academics' interests? (2016, May 03). Retrieved July

17, 2017, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/do-academic-social-networks-share-

academics-interests#survey-answer

Meyer, D. (2014, March 13). Academic social network ResearchGate aids debunking of stem cell study.

Retrieved June 15, 2017, from https://gigaom.com/2014/03/14/academic-social-network-researchgate-aids-

debunking-of-stem-cell-study/

Naik, Gautam. 2014. Hong Kong scientist casts doubt on stem-cell study; Professor says he is unable to

replicate findings of groundbreaking Japanese research. Wall Street Journal (Online), March 13, sec. World.

Oh, J. S., & Jeng, W. (2011, October). Groups in Academic Social Networking Services--An Exploration of

Their Potential as a Platform for Multi-disciplinary Collaboration. In Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust

(PASSAT) and 2011 IEEE Third Inernational Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), 2011 IEEE Third

International Conference on (pp. 545-548). IEEE.

Ovadia, S. (2014). ResearchGate and Academia. edu: Academic social networks. Behavioral & Social

Sciences Librarian, 33(3), 165-169.

Perakakis, P., Ponsati-Obiols, A., Bernal, I., Sierra, C., Osman, N., Mosquera-de-Arancibia, C., & Lorenzo, E.

(2017). OPRM: Challenges to Including Open Peer Review in Open Access Repositories. Code4Lib Journal,

(35).

References cont’d:Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., & Asgari-Targhi, M. (2010). Adoption

and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1926), 4039-4056.

Introducing Open Review: A new way to evaluate research. ResearchGate. Retrieved May 26, 2017 from

https://www.researchgate.net/publicliterature.OpenReviewInfo.html

University of California. A social networking site is not an open access repository. (2016, February 23).

Retrieved June 16, 2017, fromhttp://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/12/a-social-networking-site-is-not-an-

open-access-repository/index.html

Weintraub, A. (2014). Social networks attempt to spark academic university collaborations (vol 30, pg 901,

2013). NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, 32(3), 212-212.

Zaugg, H., West, R. E., Tateishi, I., & Randall, D. L. (2011). Mendeley: Creating communities of scholarly

inquiry through research collaboration. TechTrends, 55(1), 32-36.